On 06 Mar 2011, at 14:16, Andrew Soltau wrote:

Hi Bruno

On 05/03/11 14:46, Bruno Marchal wrote:

BTW, you did not answer my last point on the comp reversal, at the UDA step seven.

From that previous email

Step seven itself shows the reversal between physics and arithmetic (or any first order theory of any universal system in post Church Turing sense) in case the physical universe exists primitively and is sufficiently big.
It is this 'reversal' which I do not follow. You do not seem to mean simply and solely the reversal of the primacy of physics and arithmetic.

I do. The details of the proof makes it also a reversal between physics and computer science, and even between physics and "computer's theology or self-reference".

Some predicted to me in the eighties that all the "material hypostases" would collapse (here it means the modality Bp, and Dp and p would be equivalent), so that the logic of physics would be classical propositional calculus. If that did happen, it would have mean that physics is empty, and that everything 'physical' is actually geographical. There would be no physical *laws*, and we would have been able to find place in the universe with arbitrary laws. But the material modalities did not collapse, and the quantum principle appears as a very plausible general trait of the universal machine.

Step seven establish that physics is a branch of arithmetic.
the reversal of the primacy of physics and arithmetic.

Yes. The theory of everything is basically addition+multiplication in the natural numbers. But there are many equivalent theories.

That schroedinger equation has to be redundant.
Why should it be redundant? It predicts the results of experiments with the highest precision known to any science in the history of the human race.

That alone suggests that SWE might a theorem, and not an axiom or something to be inferred from observation. Isn't it?

Step 1-7 is the reduction of the mind body problem to a purely mathematical body problem. It is the contrary of the idea that particles and fileds result from a classical algorithm.
I was not aware that anyone thinks that particles and fileds result from a classical algorithm. What point are you making?

That comp, which reduce physics to number theory, is not digital physics, which makes the universe (particles and fields) a computable thing (and thus that physics could be rendered by a classical algorithm, like a classical program computing a quantum computer for example).

My point here was the distinction between comp and digital physics.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to